Pew: minorities embrace internet via handheld devices

The Pew Internet Life Project says that more and more African Americans and …

A new report released by the Pew Internet and American Life Project will surely spill over into arguments about broadband penetration in the United States, not to mention other debates. It says that African-Americans access the Internet via handheld devices more often than whites, for whom an online connection is more likely to come from an ISP-connected computer. "This means the digital divide between African Americans and white Americans diminishes when mobile use is taken into account," Pew says. Expect arguments about audience ratings systems and exclusive handset deals to be influenced by the report as well

Interestingly, there's a big gap between the percentage of people who have an internet capable handheld, and the share who actually use it for that. Eighty-five percent of the respondents told Pew they have a smart phone or cell phone, but only 32 percent said they've used it to go online.

Pew's "Wireless Internet Use" survey was based on telephone interviews with 2,253 adults (people over 18) conducted in April and March. Merged with earlier surveys, it notes that the percentage of Americans who say they've used the Internet on a handheld is now at 32 percent, up by eight percent from December 2007. But while the share of white respondents who disclose that they've ever gone online this way has grown from 21 to 28 percent, among African Americans it has jumped from 29 to 48 percent. And among English-speaking Hispanics, from 38 to 47 percent.

On an average day, twenty nine percent of African-Americans access the internet on a handheld, according to the survey. What this does, Pew says, is even the gap between white and nonwhite Americans on broadband account fueled laptop/desktop access. White Americans hit the web using a telco/cable ISP connected computer by a significantly higher margin than African-Americans: 59 to 45 percent.

But the internet access rate for black users rises to 54 percent when mobile devices get factored into the mix. "The high level of activity among African Americans on mobile devices helps offset lower levels of access tools that have been traditional onramps to the internet, namely desktop computers, laptops, and home broadband connections," Pew concludes.

Reasons to be cheerful, part 2

Fifty-six percent of all Americans have gotten to the Internet via some kind of wireless gadget, Pew reports. That includes cell phones, laptops, game consoles, and MP3 players. But the reasons that they're going online have become more varied, especially with handhelds. More users turn to them not just to communicate with friends, family, and coworkers, but to look at, listen to, and share content. Fifty percent of respondents told Pew that wireless is "very important" because "I can stay easily in touch with other people." But 46 percent classified it at the same priority level because "I have easy access to information online" and 17 percent because "I can share or post content online."

Again, among African-Americans and Hispanics, these trends are more pronounced. Fifty-three percent of the former said accessing information is very important, and 22 percent said the same for sharing or posting. For Hispanics, the answers were respectively 54 and 24 percent.

"Overall, English-speaking Hispanics are the heaviest users of wireless onramps to the internet," the report says, but notes that Pew did not survey people whose primary language is Spanish.

Interestingly, there's a big gap between the percentage of people who have an Internet-capable handheld, and the share who actually use it for that. Eighty-five percent of the respondents told Pew they have a smart phone or cell phone, but only 32 percent said they've used it to go online. There's much less of a gap with laptops. Forty-seven percent reported having one, 39 percent say they've accessed the 'Net with it via a wireless connection.

Where is this going?

These stats will probably have an impact on various hot topics being debated in Congress and at the Federal Communications Commission. Critics of how Arbitron recruits radio-listening participants for its audience rating surveys may note that they highlight the importance of including more cell phone only households in the mix, given the prominence of minorities in that category. The FCC is currently running an investigation of the metrics company's new Portable People Meter device.

And this report has to be good news for those hoping to put a more positive spin on the nation's progress in providing broadband for all Americans. The Internet Innovation Alliance's recent survey on US broadband penetration noted that high speed wireline Internet adoption has had a huge impact on the economy. "The sizable benefits to households from mobile wireless broadband services are additional to our estimates," its report noted. Expect that addition to be included in future surveys, especially those offered by the wireless industry itself.

Then there's the exclusive handset deal question, about which the FCC's new chair has promised an investigation. Pew's survey will doubtless be noted by all sides of that debate. Data indicating that more and more people rely on mobiles for internet access dials up the question of how much choice consumers have over handsets and handset applications.

I'm slightly confused by the plethora of numbers flying around in this article. Primarily, however, I'm confused around this assertion:

quote:

But the internet access rate for black users rises to 54 percent when mobile devices get factored into the mix. "The high level of activity among African Americans on mobile devices helps offset lower levels of access tools that have been traditional onramps to the internet, namely desktop computers, laptops, and home broadband connections," Pew concludes.

First of all, ignoring sudden shift from PC ethnic names to colour-based ethnic names, I don't see where the conclusion is made concrete. What does the number for caucasians jump to when factoring in mobile devices? 59 to 54% is a better mix than 59 to 45, but I get the feeling that with those same factors, 59 for caucasians will jump higher. Perhaps not as dramatically, and perhaps it closes the gap by a fair margin, but, depending on how high 59% jumps, it could be just as wide.

quote:

Interestingly, there's a big gap between the percentage of people who have an internet capable handheld, and the share who actually use it for that. 85 percent of the respondents told Pew they have a smart phone or cell phone, but only 32 percent said they've used it to go online

I don't know how interesting this is considering there's no breakdown between smart phones and cell phones. I would classify a cell phone as having rudimentary, high-priced, a la carte data plans tacked on and as a cursory feature. I would classify a smart phone as being entirely developed around the premise that a data plan would be used.

That ambiguity itself makes that disparity far less interesting to me. Take out cell phone from that disparity and it becomes a lot more interesting to me.

Those numbers are kind of curious, because internet access via a phone is, generally, considerably costlier than by using a computer/ISP.

For older people, however, I can see that as being a strong probability (so I'd have been curious to see the statistic based on age)... they might not be at all computer savvy, but sending an email on a smartphone is no more difficult than sending a text message.

Then again, if you can't afford a computer (statistically black americans tend to be less affluent), and if you can't live without a cell phone (just about everyone has one), it's hard not to find a cell computer without some internet-related features... which might explain those figures.

Those numbers are kind of curious, because internet access via a phone is, generally, considerably costlier than by using a computer/ISP.

It's also not as robust as surfing with a computer. I doubt most African Americans & Hispanics have iPhones. More likely, they're on a cheaper phone, perhaps a pre-pay. Those do not provide a very good online experience. They have their own little browsing universe built, designed to try and suck as much money from you as possible (by wasting your kb/sec looking for crap, or offering you stupid stuff like ring tones for $5/each).

I don't think hopping on the little LG's crappy browser to surf for some new ring tones qualifies as "internet use", and definitely doesn't qualify as bridging the gap of the digital divide. Totally different use-case scenarios, with the phone incredibly handicapped still.

Pew's "Wireless Internet Use" survey was based on telephone interviews with 2,253 adults (people over 18) conducted in

Ding, there you go. It's premature to ditch all polling exclusively by phone just yet, but they're getting worse and worse with time.

In addition, while 2,253 respondents (not even phone numbers tried... humans who could and would respond) is a good number, this survey then tries to break out subgroups. Assuming african-americans at 11-13% of the population (correct me if I'm wrong), the poll would have about 240-300- NOT a sample size I'd brag about. This is also assuming that 240-300 is representative and well-distributed. We're also looking at a subgroup of a subgroup: minorities with smartphones.

I'm not saying this report is total crap, but the next step, at a minimum, is independent replication. Then we'll check discrepancies, particularly in non-phoned responses. And preferably with a much larger N.

Originally posted by Zeebee:Those numbers are kind of curious, because internet access via a phone is, generally, considerably costlier than by using a computer/ISP.

Generally, yes. But if you shop around that isn't always the case. I've been paying about $15/month on top of my cell plan for unlimited 3G data on Sprint and I've been doing it for years. Even with their newer plans which include everything bundled together, you're paying about $15-20 over the cost of a non-data plan to tack on unlimited data. This is considerably less than most ISP's if you consider it as an addition on top of an existing voice plan. If you have a good phone you can often use it as a modem as well. When I was using my WM phones, I would always joke that I brought my internet with me.

Pew's "Wireless Internet Use" survey was based on telephone interviews with 2,253 adults (people over 18) conducted in

Ding, there you go. It's premature to ditch all polling exclusively by phone just yet, but they're getting worse and worse with time.

If the reason for phone polls getting worse with time is the move to cell phones, that doesn't apply to this survey; they dialed cell phones as well as land lines. Is there some other confounding factor that's significant?

quote:

Sir Ix-A-Lot:In addition, while 2,253 respondents (not even phone numbers tried... humans who could and would respond) is a good number, this survey then tries to break out subgroups. Assuming african-americans at 11-13% of the population (correct me if I'm wrong), the poll would have about 240-300- NOT a sample size I'd brag about. This is also assuming that 240-300 is representative and well-distributed. We're also looking at a subgroup of a subgroup: minorities with smartphones. [quote]Sir Ix-A-Lot:So, what's the worst-case error based on an N of that size? If it's not significantly different from what's reported, we don't really have to worry about it. I'd take a crack at calculating it myself, but I'm traveling at the moment, and don't have much time online.

I'm not saying this report is total crap, but the next step, at a minimum, is independent replication. Then we'll check discrepancies, particularly in non-phoned responses. And preferably with a much larger N.

I'd say that the first step is to look at the published study and their claimed error margins. If they've made a mistake in their sampling or error calculations then moving on to independent replication might be worthwhile. If not, we just determine whether or not the 2-3% error claimed is significant with respect to the claims made. It didn't look to me like 2-3% error would change the claims significantly, but I'm not a statistician either.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.